[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+Conjectural: If the first parameter to a multi signature is followed +by an invocant colon, that signature represents two signatures, one +for an ordinary method definition, and one for the corresponding multi +definition that has a comma instead of the colon. This form is legal +only where the standard method definition would be legal, and only +if any declared type of the first parameter is consistent with $?CLASS.
Should "...and one for the corresponding multi definition..." read "...and one for the corresponding sub definition..."? Or is there something about methods vs. multis that I'm missing? And does this dual declaration have to be restricted to multi signatures? Why not say that a method or submethod signature with an explicit invocant effectively doubles as a corresponding sub definition, with the invocant prepended as the first positional parameter? -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
